THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1249 of 2007 28-04-2014 BETWEEN:
State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Appellant AND Godugu Venkatramana Reddy And another.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1249 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 18.01.2006 passed in S.C.No.403 of 2004 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the second accused is the wife of first accused and she had no issues, that the first accused married the deceased Saralamma as his second wife seven years prior to the occurrence and they begot two male children by name Aravind and Giri. After the birth of the said two children, the accused 1 and 2 wantonly without any reason started to harass the deceased Saralamma, who represented the matter to her parents about the harassment at the hands of the accused. In the intervening night of 11.05.2014/12.05.2004, the first accused beat Saralamma and in the absence of accused 1 and 2, the deceased bolted the door along with her son and burnt herself and her son to commit suicide. In the meanwhile, the neighbours noticed the same and broke open the doors and Saralamma and Aravind were shifted to the Area Hospital, Madanapalle for treatment and Aravind died at the entrance of the hospital and Saralamma died on the same night at 8.20 p.m., while undergoing treatment. When the deceased Saralamma was undergoing treatment, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle recorded the Dying Declaration (Ex.P.8) and Police also recorded her Statement (Ex.P.27). Basing on the same, a case was registered and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.27 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution except the evidence of Doctor and the Magistrate, who recorded Dying Declaration. The State has preferred the appeal challenging the Judgment of Acquittal mainly on the ground that even though the witnesses turned hostile, the dying declarations should have been relied on and the accused should have been convicted.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused/respondents, and perused the material available on record.
The point for consideration is whether the Dying Declaration alone can be a ground for convicting the accused?
A perusal of the Dying Declaration reveals that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased Saralamma, and in that quarrel, she was asked to commit suicide. Hence, she poured kerosene herself and also on her son and set ablaze. The utterance of mere words ‘go and die’ by the accused does not attract an offence under Section 306 IPC. Further, in the present case, all the witnesses, including the parents of the deceased Saralamma, turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. There are inconsistencies in the Dying Declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate and the Statement recorded by the Head constable, and hence, it is not safe to convict the accused basing on the Dying Declaration. Hence, the Judgment of the Court below in acquitting the accused is in accordance with law. The learned trial Judge has considered the evidence in proper perspective. This Court feels that the accused are entitled for acquittal of the offences alleged.
Considering the above, this Court feels that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 28.04.2014 pln